The social and ecological costs of an ‘over-extended’ phenotype

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences

Volumn 283, Issue 1822, 2016, Pages

  Jordan, Lyndon Alexander ^a,b,c   Maguire, Sean M ^c   Hofmann, Hans A ^c   Kohda, Masanori ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KONSTANZ   (Germany)

^b Osaka Prefecture University   (Japan)

^c UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN   (United States)

Author keywords

Attractiveness; Cichlid; Extended phenotype; Mate choice; Predation; Territory

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; BREEDING SITE; CICHLID; COMMUNITY STRUCTURE; MATE CHOICE; PHENOTYPE; PREDATION RISK; PREDATOR-PREY INTERACTION; SEXUAL SELECTION; SHELL; SNAIL; SOCIAL NETWORK; TERRITORY;

CICHLIDAE; GASTROPODA; NEOLAMPROLOGUS MULTIFASCIATUS;

AGGRESSION; ANATOMY AND HISTOLOGY; ANIMAL; CICHLID; FEMALE; GENETICS; MALE; MATE CHOICE; NESTING; PHENOTYPE; PHYSIOLOGY; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

AGGRESSION; ANIMALS; CICHLIDS; FEMALE; MALE; MATING PREFERENCE, ANIMAL; NESTING BEHAVIOR; PHENOTYPE; POPULATION DYNAMICS; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR;

EID: 84954441707     PISSN: 09628452     EISSN: 14712954     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2015.2359     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Andersson M. 1994 Sexual selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Arnold SJ. 1983 Sexual selection: the interface of theory and empiricism. In Mate choice (ed. PPG Bateson), pp. 67-107. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3. Shuster SM, Wade MJ. 2003 Mating systems and strategies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Universiy Press.
4. Jordan LA, Brooks RC. 2010 The lifetime costs of increased male reproductive effort: courtship, copulation and the Coolidge effect. J. Evol. Biol. 23, 2403-2409. (doi:10.1111/J.1420-9101.2010.02104.X)
5. Nonacs P, Blumstein DT. 2010 Predation risk and behavioral life history. In Evolutionary behavioral ecology (eds DF Westneat, CW Fox), pp. 207-221. London, UK: Blackwell Scientific Press.
6. Schaedelin FC, Taborsky M. 2009 Extended phenotypes as signals. Biol. Rev. 84, 293-313. (doi:10.1111/J.1469-185x.2008.00075.X)
7. Borgia G. 1995 Complex male display and female choice in the spotted bowerbird: specialized functions for different bower decorations. Anim. Behav. 49, 1291-1301. (doi:10.1006/Anbe.1995.0161)
8. Diamond J. 1986 Animal art: variation in bower decorating style among male bowerbirds Amblyornis inornatus. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 83, 3042-3046. (doi:10.1073/Pnas.83.9.3042)
9. Borgia G. 1985 Bower quality, number of decorations and mating success of male satin bowerbirds (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus): an experimental analysis. Anim. Behav. 33, 266-271. (doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(85)80140-8)
10. Borgia G. 1985 Bower destruction and sexual competition in the satin bowerbird (Ptilonorhynchus violaceus). Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 18, 91-100. (doi:10.1007/Bf00299037)
11. Miles AJ, Madden JR. 2002 Bower location by the spotted bowerbird (Chlamydera maculata). EMU 102, 187-193. (doi:10.1021/Mu00039)
12. Gardner A, Griffin AS, West SA. 2010 Altruism and cooperation. In Evolutionary behavioral ecology (eds DF Westneat, CW Fox), pp. 308-326. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
13. Rohwer S. 1977 Status signaling in harris sparrows: some experiments in deception. Behaviour 61, 106. (doi:10.1163/156853977X00504)
14. Moller AP. 1987 Variation in badge size in male house sparrows Passer domesticus: evidence for status signaling. Anim. Behav. 35, 1637-1644. (doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(87)80056-8)
15. Taylor RJ. 1988 Territory size and location in animals with refuges: influence of predation risk. Evol. Ecol. 2, 95-101. (doi:10.1007/BF02067270)
16. Magnhagen C. 1991 Predation risk as a cost of reproduction. Trends Ecol. Evol. 6 183-186. (doi:10.1016/0169-5347(91)90210-O)
17. Candolin U, Voigt H-R. 2001 Correlation between male size and territory quality: consequence of male competition or predation susceptibility? Oikos 95, 225-230. (doi:10.1034/j.1600-0706.2001.950204.x)
18. Mainwaring MC, Hartley IR, Lambrechts MM, Deeming DC. 2014 The design and function of birds’ nests. Ecol. Evol. 4, 3909-3928. (doi:10.1002/ ece3.1054)
19. Schradin C, Lamprecht J. 2000 Female-biased immigration and male peace-keeping in groups of the shell-dwelling cichlid fish Neolamprologus multifasciatus. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 48, 236-242. (doi:10.1007/S002650000228)
20. Schradin C, Lamprecht J. 2002 Causes of female emigration in the group-living cichlid fish Neolamprologus multifasciatus. Ethology 108, 237-248. (doi:10.1046/J.1439-0310.2002.00775.X)
21. Kohler U. 1998 Zur Struktur und Evolution des Sozialsystems von Neolamprologus multifasciatus (Cichlidae, Pisces), dem kleinsten Schneckenbuntbarsch des Tanganjikasees. Aachen, Germany: Shaker Verlag.
22. Kawanabe H, Hori M, Nagoshi M. 1997 Fish communities in Lake Tanganyika. Kyoto, Japan: Kyoto University Press.
23. Csardi G, Nepusz T. 2006 The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems 1695. See http://igraph.org.
24. James R, Croft DP, Krause J. 2009 Potential banana skins in animal social network analysis. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 63, 989-997. (doi:10.1007/s00265-009-0742-5)
25. Hobson EA, Avery ML, Wright TF. 2013 An analytical framework for quantifying and testing patterns of temporal dynamics in social networks. Anim. Behav. 85, 83-96. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2012.10.010)
26. Pons P, Latapy M. 2005 Walktrap algorithm. Computing communities in large networks using random walks (long version). (http://arxiv.org/abs/ physics/0512106)
27. Elston D, Moss R, Boulinier T, Arrowsmith C, Lambin X. 2001 Analysis of aggregation, a worked example: numbers of ticks on red grouse chicks. Parasitology 122, 563-569. (doi:10.1017/S0031182001007740)
28. Gelman A, Jakulin A, Pittau MG, Su Y-S. 2008 A weakly informative default prior distribution for logistic and other regression models. Ann. Appl. Stat. 2, 1360-1383. (doi:10.1214/08-AOAS191)
29. Bergmüller R, Heg D, Taborsky M. 2005 Helpers in a cooperatively breeding cichlid stay and pay or disperse and breed, depending on ecological constraints. Proc. R. Soc. B 272, 325-331. (doi:10.1098/rspb.2004.2960)
30. Jordan LA, Wong MYL, Balshine SS. 2010 The effects of familiarity and social hierarchy on group membership decisions in a social fish. Biol. Lett. 6, 301 - 303. (doi:10.1098/rsbl.2009.0732)
31. Jordan LA, Avolio C, Herbert-Read JE, Krause J, Rubenstein DI, Ward AJW. 2010 Group structure in a restricted entry system is mediated by both resident and joiner preferences. Behav. Ecol. Sociobiol. 64, 1099 - 1106. (doi:10.1007/s00265-010-0924-1)
32. Schaedelin FC, Taborsky M. 2006 Mating craters of Cyathopharynx furcifer (Cichlidae) are individually specific, extended phenotypes. Anim. Behav. 72, 753-761. (doi:10.1016/J.Anbehav.2005.11.028)
33. Kurvers RH, Krause J, Croft DP, Wilson AD, Wolf M. 2014 The evolutionary and ecological consequences of animal social networks: emerging issues. Trends Ecol. Evol. 29, 326-335. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2014.04.002)
34. Lawyer G. 2015 Understanding the influence of all nodes in a network. Sci. Rep. 5, 8665. (doi:10.1038/srep08665)
35. Andersson M, Simmons LW. 2006 Sexual selection 9 and mate choice. Trends Ecol. Evol. 21, 296-302. (doi:10.1016/j.tree.2006.03.015)
36. Moreno J. 2012 Avian nests and nest-building as signals. Avian Biol. Res. 5, 238-251. (doi:10.3184/175815512X13534385822786)
37. Mitchell JS, Ocana SW, Taborsky M. 2014 Male and female shell-brooding cichlids prefer different shell characteristics. Anim. Behav. 98, 131-137. (doi:10.1016/j.anbehav.2014.10.004)
38. Slagsvold T, Amundsen T, Dale S, Lampe H. 1992 Female- female aggression explains polyterritoriality in male pied flycatchers. Anim. Behav. 43, 397-407. (doi:10.1016/S0003-3472(05)80100-9)
39. Iwasa Y, Harada Y. 1998 Female mate preference to maximize paternal care. II. Female competition leads to monogamy. Am. Nat. 151, 367-382. (doi:10.1086/286125)
40. Bergmuller R, Heg D, Peer K, Taborsky M. 2005 Extended safe havens and between-group dispersal of helpers in a cooperatively breeding cichlid. Behaviour 142, 1643-1667. (doi:10.1163/ 156853905774831800)